A recent Connecticut Law Tribune story by Tom McParland, “2nd Circuit Blocks Attorney Fees for Troopers Who Recovered Union Dues After Landmark SCOTUS Ruling,” reports that a Manhattan-based federal appeals court rejected an appeal from a group of Connecticut state troopers who petitioned for attorney fees after securing a refund of collective bargaining dues in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Janus decision, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine if they were “prevailing parties” to the litigation.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, left in place, for now, a district court’s ruling that the case was moot because the Connecticut State Police Union had refunded the current and former officers the full amount they had paid into collective bargaining, plus interest. In a six-page summary order, the Second Circuit said the lower court’s ruling, which dismissed the case without prejudice, was not a final judgment that could be appealed, and noted that more litigation was likely in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
“Having reviewed the record, we find that there has been no final, appealable judgment entered in the district court. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal and must remand to the district court for further proceedings,” the panel wrote.
The plaintiffs, who declined to join the union, filed their lawsuit before the Supreme Court held in Janus that the First Amendment bars public employers from withholding agency fees from workers who opt out of a collective bargaining union. Following the Janus decision, the union stopped collecting fees, and eventually provided a full refund after the officers moved for summary judgment.
U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden denied the motion as moot, and later found that the plaintiffs did not qualify as “prevailing parties” to the litigation. Though the case was “administratively closed,” it did allow the plaintiffs to petition the court for post-judgment attorney fees and costs.
The Second Circuit panel said that its jurisdiction was limited, with few exceptions, to appeals from final judgments by a district court. The administrative closure, however, did not meet that threshold, and the judges said Bolden would still need to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment on remand. “In short, we see no indication that a final order has been entered in this case,” the court said.